LON/00BC/LSC/2025/0844 — service charge decision
In LON/00BC/LSC/2025/0844, decided 19 August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 30 disputed service charge items at 11 Embassy Court, 43 Woodford Road, London, E18 2EE and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 11 Embassy Court, 43 Woodford Road, London, E18 2EE
Decision date: 19 August 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Lint (formerly Land Commercial).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-21) | £3,266 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £3,877 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £5,040 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £1,163 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £2,544 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-21) | £2,255 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £1,513 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £1,863 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £3,288 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £744 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £786 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £1,080 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £1,134 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £1,194 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £1,815 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £13,816 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £234 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £245.61 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £1,540 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £395 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £186 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £2,980 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £1,550 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-23) | £732 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £1,860 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £200 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £680 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,118.40 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £1,170 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £4,764 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“A management fee of £300 per property (+ VAT) is at the lower end of the range of charges. We are satisfied that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“A management fee of £300 per property (+ VAT) is at the lower end of the range of charges. We are satisfied that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“A management fee of £300 per property (+ VAT) is at the lower end of the range of charges. We are satisfied that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“A management fee of £300 per property (+ VAT) is at the lower end of the range of charges. We are satisfied that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Skjott's argument and finds that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Skjott's argument and finds that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal deplores Mr Lipman's tendency to make allegations of fraud and bad faith against the Respondent and against Mr Wolpert. As a retired solicitor, Mr Lipman should know that such allegations should only be made if there is clear and cogent evidence to support them. There is no such evidence in this case.”
“This line of questioning did not assist the Tribunal in determining the issues in dispute. It did no more than highlight the animosity that Mr Lipman holds towards Mr. Wolpert and the Residents Association.”
“It was only too clear to the Tribunal that he has inherited the animosity that his father had held against both the Respondent and the Wolpert family.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.